|
|
|
|
Gallo-Roman Aristocrats and the Barbarian Settlement of Gaul
Gallo-Roman Aristocrats and the Barbarian Settlement of Gaul
The barbarian settlements in Gaul in the fifth century altered the political and social landscape of the region. What had been a highly Romanized part of the Roman Empire soon fell out of the grip of the Roman Emperors in all but theory. The Roman citizens living in Gaul at this time had to adapt themselves to the new conditions, especially the aristocrats for whom the greatest changes occurred. Aristocrats lost wealth, prestige, official positions and careers due to the barbarian’s settlement and control of Gallia. Despite the upheaval, the Gallo-Roman aristocracy survived and was able to prosper once again. The aristocratic view of the barbarian settlements changed over the course of the fifth century from one of complete disaster to one in which the barbarians could possibly be considered good neighbors. The Gallo-Roman aristocrats reacted and adjusted to the barbarians settlement by maintaining an intellectual distance from the barbarians, by continuing their quest for the Roman ideal life, through ecclesiastical callings, a pursuit of literary culture and finally by cooperating with the new masters of Gaul. The aristocracy which emerged in the sixth century had altered itself, but it emerged confident and powerful and sure of itself. By the late fourth century A.D., the Roman Empire was no longer a power of the west. Few emperors spent much time in Rome, and Diocletian had his capital at Nicomedia. Constantine’s establishment of Constantinople would be decisive. The true seat of the empire was now Constantinople, and the western seat of the empire was no longer even Rome by the fifth century. Honorius in 404 chose Ravenna as the seat of his capital and it remained so under both Odoacer and Theodoric the Great. While the empire still endeavored to maintain its western borders, the east had become the important half of the empire. One example of the growing centrality of the east is in the language of documents. While under Diocletian, documents sent throughout the empire were issued in Latin. Under Constantine, things had changed. With the growing emphasis on the east, such universal documents were sent out in Greek, in addition to Latin. The imperial government’s focus on the east was illustrated in another way also. The legions protecting the west were reduced in the late fourth century, and eventually removed altogether to fight wars in the east. The Rhine legions, which had protected the western empire from invasion were now gone. Latinius Pacatus Drepanius accused Theodosius of neglecting Gaul. “O Emperor: we Gauls -- you may well be astonished – are angry at your triumphs. While you went off conquering to distant lands, while you extended the realms of the East beyond the limits of things and the boundaries of Nature, while you hastened toward those neighbors of the dawn and the very resting place of the sun, if there is one, a tyrant discovered a hiding place for his crimes.” The Gallo-Romans were perhaps not the only citizens of the Empire to feel neglected by the Emperor. Theophanes also noted a similar neglect of Spain and Gaul by Valentinian III in the 430s. Theophanes wrote that Valentinian was unable to hold Britain, Gaul and Spain and then gives his account of what happened. In his account, there is no attempt to protect Spain and Gaul. Rather, the only military action described takes place in Africa. Finally, Sidonius Apollinaris wrote “my land of Gaul hath even till now been ignored by the lords of the world.” In the late fourth and early fifth centuries A.D., barbarian incursions into the empire were, if not regular occurrences, at least not uncommon ones. There is no need to give a recounting of the different incursions into the Empire and which tribes participated in them. By the fifth century, barbarian tribes had been invited into the empire, as well as were crossing the borders of their own volition and for their own reasons, for quite some time. Roman emperors had been using barbarian soldiers in ever-greater numbers since the reign of Constantine. That is not to say that these barbarian hordes were always docile. In 376, the Emperor Valens admitted Gothic refugees into the empire. They rebelled against him the very next year. Other barbarian groups did the same. They were defeated, but not destroyed because “The Roman government had long cultivated certain of its neighbors as a precious military asset usable for the benefit of the empire.” Michael Kulikowski argues that the settlement in Gaul of the Visigoths in 418 was done for the benefit of the empire, not necessarily a concession to the Visigoths. By the early fourth century A.D., Gaul had been under Roman rule for nearly five centuries. Gaul was initially a troublesome province, and the Roman fear of the Gauls dating to the sack of Rome by Gauls in 390 B.C. reinforced the idea that the Gauls were an unruly lot. Despite a few insurrections, Gallia quickly became a pacified part of the Imperium Romanum. With the death of Nero, the Gauls rose in rebellion again, but this time it was no longer a rebellion against foreign rule. Mommsen stated that: “The overthrow of the Julio-Claudian dynasty emanated from a Celtic noble and began with a Celtic insurrection: but this was not a revolt against the foreign rule . . . its aim was not the setting aside, but the transforming, of the Roman government.” Mommsen emphasized his point: “the Roman rule might be felt, according to circumstances, as a yoke, but no longer as a foreign rule.” Even during the third century crisis, the independent Gallic empire was still Roman. J. F. Drinkwater argued that Postumus rebelled in 260 due to Silvanus’ interference in the difficult military situation that had arisen from the barbarian incursions into Gaul. With Gallienus busy elsewhere, Postumus’ action was intended to safeguard Gaul. The Gallic Empire itself continued to operate under Roman organization. Gallia had indeed become a part of Rome, no longer considering Rome a foreign master. By the middle of the fourth century A.D., Gaul was an important and integral part of the Roman Empire. The imperial residence in the late third century, where Valentinian I kept court, and the seat of Roman government in the west was at Trier. His son Gratian likewise resided in Gaul, spending much of his reign defending the region. A great many native Gauls were prominent members of the imperial court, thanks both to the location of the court and to the Emperor’s senior counselor Ausonius of Bordeaux. Ausonius saw his son-in-law Thalassius as vicarius of Macedonia in 377 and then pronconsul of Africa in 378. A nephew of Ausonius, Arborius, was comes sacrarum largitionum in 379 and prefect of Rome in 380. Catafronius, another possible family member, was vicarius of Italy in 376-7. As Claudius Mamertinus wrote: “. . . riches are heaped upon men who labor at nothing; provinces, prefectures, fasces come forth spontaneously . . .Whoever has shown himself blameless and energetic at any time in state administration is admitted to participation in your duties. For governing provinces you choose not your closest acquaintances but the most upright men.” Clearly the Gallic aristocracy not only saw themselves as part of the empire, but as benefiting from it. Yet the seat of the court would not remain long in Trier. Sometime in the early years of the fifth century (as early as 407 and no later than 418) the praetorian prefect was transferred to Arles. Possibly, the siege of Trier in 406-407 by barbarians prompted this transfer. In short order, the military garrisons of the Rhine were withdrawn as well. The Gauls began to feel neglected by the government. Sidonius Apollinaris in his panegyric to the emperor Majorian in 458 claimed this to be long term neglect. “Ever since Theodosius restored a joint authority to his patron’s exiled brother . . . my land of Gaul hath even till now been ignored by the lords of the world, and hath languished in slavery unheeded.” In addition, the imperial government ceded many Gallic regions to the barbarians. The first of these cessions was to the Franks in the fourth century in which parts of the north were allotted to barbarians. This was followed in 418 by the southwest to the Visigoths and areas around Valence and Orleans in 441 and 442. The Burgundians were given Savoy in 443. These would not be the last cessions, and the aristocracy of Gaul was not pleased with what was happening. Apollinaris wrote to bishop Graecus of Marseilles, one of the negotiators of the accord in 475 that gave the Auvergne to the Visigoths. “Our servitude has been made the price for the security of others . . . If we are truly surrendered, it is certain that you cowards engineered the barbarous plan which you recommended.” The dominant class in Gaul, the Gallo-Roman aristocracy, had already been deprived of the administrative offices that allowed them to participate in public life by the removal of the court from Trier. This was now followed by the barbarian invasions and settlements on their land. These changes in the world of the Gallo-Roman aristocrat were watersheds. For five hundred years they had been part of the Roman Empire. With the settlement of barbarians on Gallic soil, that reality began to change. Much has been written in recent years on the barbarian settlements in Gaul. Initially, the reports of the Gallic writers provided a vision of the settlements that led to the view of them as incredibly destructive invasions. Claudius Mamertinus wrote that “The barbarians were occupying the most ancient and once most prosperous cities; the famous nobility of Gaul had either fallen by the sword or had been bound and enslaved to harsh masters.” The author of The Poem on the Providence of God expressed similar visions. “If the entire ocean had poured over the fields of Gaul, more would have survived the vast waters . . . for ten years we have been cut down by the slaughtering swords of the Vandals and of the Goths . . . we have suffered the ultimate calamity . . . Perhaps men of more advanced years, whose wickedness was greater, have suffered what they deserve from an offended God, but what crime did innocent boys and girls commit, when their short life span had given them no time or occasion for sin?” Orientius, bishop of Auch in the 430s stated famously that, “all Gaul smoked in one funeral pyre.” Such a devastating view of the barbarian invasions of Gaul cast a pall of bleakness on the early fifth century. However, not all historians believe the barbarian settlement in Gaul caused such widespread general destruction and loss of life. Walter Goffart states that the settlement of barbarians in Gaul occurred “without dispossessing or overturning indigenous society.” Edith Wightman notes that accounts like those mentioned above should not be taken literally and “are more dramatic than clear.” Goffart’s work in particular has been influential in downplaying the changes wrought by barbarian settlements. He argues that the barbarians were not given land extracted from Gallo-Roman aristocrats but were rather given the taxes derived from that land. While he does admit that his argument rests on very slim evidence, he states that “the few texts examined here justify our concluding that state resources, rather than those of the provincials, paid for the cost of the Visigothic settlement.” If the settlement of Visigoths and Burgundians in Gaul was accomplished in this way, then the devastation and the loss of property caused by the settlement must indeed have been extremely overstated by contemporary sources. But Goffart’s claims do not stand unchallenged. In order to support his thesis all the texts have to be accepted as having been written in the vocabulary of tax law. Another difficulty comes from the sources themselves, which do occasionally say outright that the seizure of land took place. One such source is Philostorgius who wrote that the Goths received “a grant of corn, and a district in Gaul for the purpose of tillage.” Philostorgius makes it clear that land was given, not the revenue of that land, as it was to be used for farming. Paulinus of Pella lost his property during the settlements even if it wasn’t part of the official settlement by the Roman government. Grandson of Ausonius, Paulinus complained that his property was devastated because he was not protected by a barbarian ‘guest.’ This record of Paulinus’ even more than those texts which state that land was given as part of the settlement indicates that the barbarians incursions were sometimes very destructive. Salvian too referred to the aristocracy who “no longer have any country, and are living as paupers in comparison with their past wealth.” Quite likely, in addition to confiscations of private property, grants of land not currently in use were also made. The Burgundian settlement, even more than the Visigothic, seems to have been one in which land, not taxes, was the probable basis for the agreement. Burns argues that this was a case of frontier defense along the Rhine, and as such would likely have followed the tradition of providing such barbarians with available land along the frontier. Whether the settlement of Visigoths, Burgundians and other barbarians was accomplished through the seizure and redistribution of land (as seems more likely) or through the allocation of the taxes of that land to the barbarians, it is generally accepted that this process was not as devastating as once thought, except perhaps in the north. Even Salvian admitted that “I myself have seen men of lofty birth and honor though already despoiled and plundered . . . something yet remained to them of their property.” While the disruption caused by the settlement of barbarians in Gaul were not as ruinous as once thought, it still was a cause of change for the Gallo-Romans. As can already be seen, initially the perception of the settlements was one of great destruction and plundering. One need only read Carmen de providential dei to see one such impression. Claudius Mamertinus and Orientius offer further examples of this view. There were others too who focused on this destruction. Yet the very survival of the Gallo-Roman aristocracy in positions of strength and wealth illustrates that the destruction discussed in such detail by the previous generation of authors was, perhaps, not so bad. Late fifth century Gallic writers were related to the early fifth century writers who are responsible for the tales of great suffering. Their survival and adaptation into the Gallic world they now inhabited is evidence that such great destruction was not visited upon their predecessors. Wood argues that the “doom-laden apologists were not the representatives of a class or society that was destroyed by the barbarian invasions, although they will have sustained some losses. In fact they were members of an aristocracy that, in southern and central Gaul at least, survived relatively unharmed into the period of the successor states. The late fifth century aristocracy worked with the barbarians, as Sidonius’ own writings illustrate when discussing Theodoric, the Visigothic king. “Chin, throat, and neck are full, but not fat and all of fair complexion; seen close, their colour is fresh as that of youth; they often flush, but from modesty, and not from anger.” Sidonius’ description of Theodoric is very flattering, even stating that the king’s knees are the “comeliest and least wrinkled in the world.” While we need not accept Sidonius’ praise here as absolute truth, it does indicate that not only had Sidonius seen the king, he spent time in close proximity with the king. Though somewhat later, Avitus of Vienne is also seen to be in close proximity to a barbarian prince. In a letter to Sigismund (before his elevation to the throne) Avitus discussed his displeasure at being separated from Sigismund during Easter. “If you were to ask what it was like, I would say that it was difficult to do, since we were not together.” There is a distinct lack of outrage against the barbarians who had devastated the land of the aristocracy’s forbears. No longer did the Gallo-Roman aristocrats view the barbarians as terrible destroyers whose arrival and destroyed the Roman way of life. Now they were seen as part of the world in which the aristocracy lived. Indeed, Sidonius called upon Euric to defend Roman interests. This is hardly the act of a man who considers the barbarians to be a destructive force to the empire. How the Gallo-Roman aristocracy reacted and adjusted to the presence of the barbarian will occupy the remainder of this paper. The barbarians were never well thought of among Romans. A law of the 370s prohibited marriage of provincials of any rank from marrying barbarians because in such marriages, “something suspect or noxious is encountered.” The emperor Gratian was criticized for adopting barbarian dress, “sometimes he traveled in barbarian costume [and] roused the hatred of the soldiers against himself.” The Gallo-Romans shared this attitude towards the barbarians and used this as a means of putting distance between themselves and the newly settled barbarians.. Generally, Gallo-Romans spoke disparagingly about the barbarians. The poet Claudian referred to the, “senate of long-haired, skin-clad Getic leaders.” Barbarians were routinely described as skin-clad, smelly, uncultured and unreliable. These attempts to place distance between the Romans and the barbarians continued after the barbarians were firmly settled in power in Gaul. Even among those who could easily work among the barbarians, like Sidonius Apollinaris, there seemed a delight in such descriptions. Sidonius described his life in Lyons among the Burgundians by informing Catullinus that, “I . . . call your eyes and ears happy, happy too your nose, for you don’t have a reek of garlic and foul onions discharged upon you at early morn from ten breakfasts.” And again, “I am among long-haired hordes, having to endure German speech, praising oft with wry face the song of the gluttonous Burgundian who spreads rancid butter on his hair.” However, this denigration of the barbarian was not enough to soothe aristocratic hurt at being displaced by the barbarians. One such method was to view the barbarians strictly as Roman allies in the service of the Roman government. The aristocrats could thus maintain an illusion of superiority to the barbarians. This was bolstered by acceptance of Roman ways by barbarians. Sidonius has the Visigothic king Theodoric I plead with Avitus to take the imperial throne saying, “with thee as leader I am a friend of Rome, with thee as Emperor, I am her soldier.” Orosius repeats a tale in which the Gothic king Athaulf did not replace Romania with Gothia because it was better that the Goths augment the strength and glory of Rome. Whether the story is true or not, it exemplified how Romans thought the Goths should be, loyal federates working for the greater good of Rome. “The pageantry of my rank flourished no less in its setting of deferential crowds and throngs of supporting clients.” Thus Paulinus of Pella relates the goal of many Roman aristocrats. To become a power and influential man was of great importance to the Roman aristocrat. “Usually we say that men are happy when the inducements of power have led them up to the dizzy heights of proud honor, when they have been enriched with huge profits and have accumulated magnificent returns on properties scattered throughout all the world. We admire . . . their great houses, countless servants, and watchful clients.” This then was another reaction to the barbarian domination of Gaul. Aristocrats who had formerly begun to seek roles in the Imperial government returned to these goals of personal wealth and local influence. By doing this, aristocrats were able to isolate themselves from the changes that were taking place around them. By using what wealth remained to them, their status and their influence with other men of wealth and influence, they were able to act as patrons to those less fortunate. Some sought more than just local office. Those who achieved public office within the empire or among the governments of the barbarians were expected to share their benefits. Sidonius reminded his friend Polemius, the newly named Praetorian Prefect of Gaul, that since he now held public office he ought to “be ever mindful of your private friendship.” Some of the old nobility no longer had the wealth and influence to pursue the traditions of the Roman ideal. The settlements had either taken their land legally, or like Paulinus, illegally. With their landed wealth went their ability to be patrons and to wield influence for their clients. Paulinus was reduced to dependence on the goodwill of others for a time. Some of the aristocrats sought other means by which to maintain their nobility and superiority. The adoption of religious life took on an increasing value among aristocrats. This is not surprising. Ever since Constantine, high-ranking ecclesiastics had been adopting more and more the aristocratic perquisites. Bishops had slipped into roles of power and authority and so stood as another challenge to aristocratic authority. The Gallic aristocracy reacted to both the less of traditional careers due to the barbarians and to the rising threat of ecclesiastics by assimilating themselves with the new ecclesiastical elite of bishops. This shift into ecclesiastical roles was further made possible because the Church had made it clear in the early fifth century that aristocrats who became bishops lost none of their wider social prerogatives and prestige. Aristocrats in religious office could continue to think and act just like their ancestors in secular positions of authority had acted because the Church had begun to use the distinctions of status previously acquired by holding civil magistracies. Furthermore, Sidonius stated that, “according to the view of the best men, the humblest ecclesiastic ranks above the most exalted secular dignitary.” Avitus concurred saying that true and unblemished nobility lay in ecclesiastical rather than secular office. Hilary of Arles wrote that the peak of nobility was to be reckoned among the sons of God. This new definition of nobility meant that local aristocrats could, by becoming Christians, enhance their nobility and dignity. Moving outside of traditional avenues for office and influence allowed the Gallo-Roman aristocracy to adopt ecclesiastical office as a means of adjusting to their new secondary role in the political power structure of Gaul. The redefinition of the aristocracy of Gaul allowed it to remain an influential part of Gallic life. But ecclesiastical offices were few in number, relatively speaking, and allowed only a small number of aristocrats to define their position in society. Many of the aristocrats found that their status was tied even more closely now to their appreciation of classical literary culture. Despite recurrent claims that the literary culture of Gaul was in serious decline (a favorite topic, it seems of Sidonius), Gauls were producing more literary works than at any other time in their history. Mathisen argues that the claims of literary decline were part of an attempt to set apart the aristocracy of Gaul by stressing their superiority culturally. In earlier times, men like Ausonius could become a member of the aristocracy through his literary activities. In fifth century Gaul, literary activity was the means by which someone born an aristocrat could remain one. The aristocrats education was based upon the classic authors. Once again, Sidonius Apollinaris is our guide to understanding this adjustment. “For now that the old degrees of official rank are swept away , those degrees by which the highest in the land used to be distinguished from the lowest, the only token of nobility will henceforth be a knowledge of letters.” Literary culture gave aristocrats their pass into aristocratic circles. Furthermore, it was a rallying point against the barbarians. It allowed the Gallo-Roman elite the opportunity to assert their Romanitas and to establish themselves as above their barbarian overlords who were unsuited for literary pursuits. Literary circles existed in most Gallic cities in which both ecclesiastical and secular aristocrats participated. These gatherings allowed aristocrats to socialize and develop their elitism and unity. Despite their desire to stand as separate from their new barbarian overlords, some elements of the Gallic nobility saw, or came to see, that cooperation with the barbarian was inevitable. The closeness of the barbarian kings also kept the aristocrats wary of being too offensive. Eventually, Romans sought service with the barbarians. This transition was made easier by their belief that the barbarians had appropriated the Roman administrative machinery. Under Euric (Visigothic king from 466-484), a number of Gallo-Roman aristocrats took positions with the barbarian court. Throughout Euric’s reign and through the end of the century, the numbers of Gallo-Romans in the Germanic administration continued to rise. Service with the Burgundian king seems to have taken a bit longer to get underway. The first definite Gallo-Roman serving the Burgundian court does not occur until 494. Thereafter, many Gallo-Romans took office with the Burgundian court. Like the Visigothic court, Mathisen sees stages or phases in the transition from Roman to Germanic administrations. First, by the middle of the fifth century, several Roman officials were cooperating openly with the barbarians. Shortly afterward, the barbarian kings began to appoint these same Roman officials to positions within the barbarians administration. Finally, the barbarians began to alter the structure of the Roman system to fit their own needs. The passage of most of a century before Gallo-Romans began to associate themselves formally with barbarians administrations is likely due to a stubborn grasping of hope that Rome would return. Only when it was clear that Rome was gone for good did many of the aristocrats of Gaul begin aligning themselves with the barbarian administrations. The Gallo-Roman aristocracy transformed itself in the wake of the barbarians settlements of Gaul. With the withdrawal of the empire to the east and the new power of the barbarians in Gaul, the aristocrats were left to fend for themselves. Their ties with Rome extended back five centuries and were difficult to sever. Rather than sever those ties, the aristocrats adapted to their new situation. With their wealth having been slashed or taken altogether, their ability to rise along an expected career path snatched from them, and the imposition of a new ruling elite above them, it is surprising that the Gallo-Roman aristocrats found a way to survive at all. The rising importance of ecclesiastical office provided one outlet for aristocratic energy, as did the traditional pursuit of local power and influence. A sense of identity, unity and elitism was established by placing an even greater emphasis on the classical literary culture. Finally the Roman nobility had held onto enough influence and authority that the barbarians began to appoint them to positions of authority within the barbarian administrations. The Gallo-Roman nobility displayed an amazing ability to adapt to their changed circumstances and emerged in the sixth century, as a class, strong and confident. |
Library
|
